Activities¶

These activities accompany the course Advocacy for Sustainable Research. They are designed to be worked through during a facilitated session, but can also be completed independently.

Each activity includes an estimated time, the context it sits in, and what you will produce.

1.1 – Find and Analyse Your Institution's Sustainability Policy¶

Section: Section 1 – Understand the Issue

Time: 15 minutes

Format: Individual, then brief group discussion

Background¶

Your institution's own environmental sustainability policy is often the most powerful tool you have as an advocate — because it represents a public commitment your leadership has already made. When you can show that a proposed change is consistent with what the institution has already agreed to, you are not asking for something new. You are asking decision-makers to follow through.

But policies vary widely in quality and ambition. Before you can use yours as a lever, you need to read it carefully.

What to do¶

Find your institution's environmental sustainability strategy or policy — it is usually published on the institution's website.

Work through the following questions:

Where did you find it — and how easy was it to locate? What does that tell you?
Does the policy cover research practice, or mainly buildings and operations?
Are the commitments time-bound and measurable? Look for vague language: "aim to explore", "consider opportunities to", "where possible". Flag anything that avoids a concrete commitment.
Who is named as responsible? Is there a governance structure or a named senior lead?
Does your institution publish regular environmental performance data? Is it publicly available?
Are there gaps between what the policy promises and what you observe in practice?

What you produce¶

A short written summary (a few bullet points is enough) of your institution's policy — its strengths, its gaps, and at least one potential lever for advocacy.

Tip

A gap is a lever. If your institution has committed to something publicly and is not yet delivering on it, that is a legitimate and constructive starting point for advocacy. You are not criticising the institution — you are helping it meet its own goals.

2.1 – Who's in Charge?¶

Section: Section 2 – People, Power and Stakeholders

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

Research organisations are not democracies. The person at the top does not need to satisfy everyone — only a much smaller group whose support keeps them in their role. Selectorate theory gives us a way to think about this: the winning coalition is the small group whose backing actually matters for any given decision.

Finding out who is in that coalition tells you where to focus. A proposal that threatens the winning coalition will be resisted regardless of its merits. A proposal that serves their interests — or at least does not threaten them — has a much better chance.

What to do¶

Who formally makes the funding and work allocation decisions relevant to your advocacy goal?
Who do they actually need to keep happy — and how do they do that?
Is there a difference between who appears to have power and who actually has it?

What you produce¶

A short list of the key people in your institution's winning coalition, with a note on what each of them cares about and what would make them likely to support or resist your proposal.

2.2 – Write a Persona¶

Section: Section 2 – People, Power and Stakeholders

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual

Background¶

A power map tells you who matters. A persona helps you think about how to approach them. The goal is not a detailed psychological profile — it is a structured way of thinking about one person's perspective before you walk into a room with them.

Even a rough sketch based on role and public behaviour is more useful than treating someone as an abstraction. Writing the persona often reveals gaps in what you know — which is itself useful.

What to do¶

Choose one person from the Greendale University power map (or, if you are working with your own institution, a real decision-maker relevant to your advocacy goal).

Write a short persona using this structure:

Role and context — what do they do, and what pressures are they currently under?
What they care about — their priorities, incentives, and what they are measured on
Their likely position — ally, opponent, or neutral? How confident are you?
What might shift them — what would make them say yes? What would make them say no?
How to reach them — what messages, relationships, or framings are most likely to be effective?

What you produce¶

A one-page persona for one key decision-maker, written in plain language.

2.3 – Draft a Targeting Strategy¶

Section: Section 2 – People, Power and Stakeholders

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Small groups (3–4 people)

Background¶

Knowing who matters is not enough — you also need a sequence. Who do you approach first? What do you say to each person? How do you build momentum rather than burning goodwill by going straight to the top?

A targeting strategy does not need to be complex. It is a simple plan for who to talk to, in what order, with what message, and what you are asking for at each stage.

What to do¶

Using the Greendale power map and the personas from Activity 2.2 (or your own institution):

Who will you approach first, and why?
What is your core message — and how will you adapt it for different people?
Who might resist, and what is your response?
What does a realistic first step look like — something you could do in the next two weeks?

What you produce¶

A short targeting strategy: a sequence of three to five contacts, with a one-sentence note on what you are asking for from each.

3.1 – Identify Goals, Strategies and Tactics¶

Section: Section 3 – Develop a Plan

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

One of the most common pitfalls in advocacy is confusing tactics with goals. A tactic is a specific action; a goal is what you are ultimately trying to achieve. Losing sight of this distinction leads to goal drift — everyone is busy doing things, but the original purpose has quietly shifted.

This activity uses a concrete scenario to practise identifying the four levels of the chain: cause, goal, strategy, and tactic.

What to do¶

Read the following scenario:

Your university has decreed that all new grant applications must include a section estimating the carbon footprint of the proposed work. Applications without this section will be returned without review.

Work through these questions:

What is the cause — the underlying reason this change matters?
What is the goal — what is the university trying to achieve?
What is the strategy — the broader approach this policy is part of?
What is the tactic — the specific action being taken?
Identify at least three ways this proposal could go wrong.

What you produce¶

A completed chain (cause → goal → strategy → tactic) for the scenario, plus a short list of potential failure points.

3.2 – Reframe Your Proposal¶

Section: Section 3 – Develop a Plan

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

The same proposal lands differently depending on who you are talking to. People have different priorities and responsibilities, and a change that matters for one reason to you may matter for an entirely different reason to the person you are asking to support it. Framing is not spin — it is showing that you have thought about what the change means for the people you need to convince.

The most common mistake advocates make is leading with the argument that convinced them. If you care about climate change, that is what you want to talk about. But a finance director is more likely to say yes because of cost reduction or regulatory risk than because of climate change. Find the frame that serves their priorities, and leads to the same place.

What to do¶

Take the advocacy goal you have been working with — from Greendale or your own institution.

Write a two-sentence pitch for each of the following audiences:

A senior research leader (Dean or VP Research)
A head of IT or research computing
A finance director

Same proposal. Different frame.

What you produce¶

Three short pitches and a note on what changed between them — and what stayed the same.

3.3 – Draft Your Advocacy Plan¶

Section: Section 3 – Develop a Plan

Time: 15 minutes

Format: Individual

Background¶

A good advocacy plan does not need to be long — it needs to be honest. Its purpose is to make your thinking visible so you can test it against reality and adjust as you learn more. Think of it as a working document, not a finished product.

This activity brings together the work from Sections 1–3: your understanding of the issue, your stakeholder analysis, and your goals.

What to do¶

Using the Greendale scenario or your own institution, work through the following:

Problem statement — write one paragraph. What specifically is the problem? Why does it matter now?
Goal — state your goal in one sentence. Is it concrete and observable? Would you be able to tell if you had achieved it?
Stakeholders — list your top three stakeholders and note their current position (ally, opponent, or neutral).
Theory of change — write one sentence: if we do X, then Y will happen, because Z.
Your contribution — what can you realistically commit to, given your time, skills, and other responsibilities?

What you produce¶

A one-page advocacy plan covering all five elements above.

4.1 – Mapping a Past Change¶

Section: Section 4 – Implement Your Plan

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

Understanding how change spreads helps you plan more effectively. The diffusion of innovations model describes five stages: knowledge (awareness), persuasion (forming an attitude), decision (to adopt or reject), implementation (actually doing it), and confirmation (becoming normal or fading).

Applying this model to a past example — rather than a hypothetical — makes it easier to see where advocacy efforts actually succeed and fail.

What to do¶

Think of one recent attempt to change something in your organisation — not necessarily related to sustainability.

Map it against the five stages. What did the advocates do at each one?
Where did momentum stall, and why?
Was the change ever officially halted, or did it just gradually stop happening?

What you produce¶

A brief written analysis (a few sentences per stage is enough) of how the change progressed — and where it didn't.

4.2 – Choosing a Starting Point¶

Section: Section 4 – Implement Your Plan

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

The best starting point for advocacy is rarely the most ambitious one. An early win builds credibility, develops skills, and creates a group of people who have done something together — which is a foundation for everything that follows. The criteria for a good starting point are: small enough to be achievable, widely enough supported to look mainstream, and immediately useful enough that it makes someone's working life easier, not harder.

What to do¶

Individually: list three changes in your institution that satisfy all of the following — small, already broadly supported, immediately useful, and achievable using relationships you already have.
In a group: compare your lists.
- Which changes appeared on several people's lists? What does that convergence tell you?
- What does it tell you if a change only appeared on one person's list?

What you produce¶

A shortlist of realistic starting points, with a note on which one you would prioritise and why.

4.3 – Being New¶

Section: Section 4 – Implement Your Plan

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

Your relationship to an organisation shapes what you can realistically attempt. Someone who has just joined faces different constraints — and sometimes different opportunities — than someone who has been there for years. Both situations have advantages worth understanding before you plan your approach.

What to do¶

Why can it be harder to change an organisation you have just joined than one you have belonged to for a long time?
Why is it sometimes easier to change an organisation you are new to?

What you produce¶

A short reflection on your own current position — insider or relative newcomer — and what that means for how you approach your advocacy.

4.4 – Who's Who in Your Institution?¶

Section: Section 4 – Implement Your Plan

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

Not everyone is equally worth approaching at the start of an advocacy campaign. Connectors and Gurus are the most valuable early contacts — not because they have formal authority, but because their support changes how others perceive your proposal. Knowing who plays these roles in your organisation is practical intelligence.

What to do¶

Individually: name one Connector, one Guru, and one Innovator in your organisation. Include yourself if it feels accurate.
- A Connector is someone trusted across different groups who knows everyone
- A Guru is someone respected for their expertise or judgement — their endorsement carries weight because they are selective
- An Innovator is someone always trying new things — enthusiastic but less persuasive as an advocate
In a group: compare lists.
- Which names appeared on several people's lists?
- What does it suggest about someone nobody listed in any category?

What you produce¶

A short list of key people by role, with a note on how you might approach each one.

4.5 – Changing Your Mind¶

Section: Section 4 – Implement Your Plan

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

Debate rarely changes minds. People tend to choose beliefs based on their sense of identity and social belonging, not because they evaluated evidence and updated rationally. Understanding how minds actually shift — including your own — helps you think more clearly about how to approach the people you are trying to persuade.

What to do¶

Describe something important that you have changed your mind about in the last ten years.

What shifted you? Was it evidence, a relationship, a shared experience, or something else?
What does this tell you about how to approach people you are trying to persuade?

What you produce¶

A short personal reflection and one concrete implication for your advocacy approach.

4.6 – Inertia¶

Section: Section 4 – Implement Your Plan

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

Getting a change approved is not the same as getting it to stick. One of the most common patterns in organisational change is that people continue doing things the old way long after the organisation has nominally moved on — sometimes indefinitely. Understanding why this happens, and what can be done about it, is part of planning for sustained change rather than just initial approval.

What to do¶

Describe a case where people continued doing things the old way after most of the organisation had moved to a new way of working.

Why was this permitted?
What were the benefits and drawbacks of allowing it?

What you produce¶

A short analysis of the case, and a note on what it means for how you will plan the maintenance phase of your own advocacy.

4.7 – Retrospective on Change¶

Section: Section 4 – Implement Your Plan

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Small groups (3–4 people)

Background¶

The tactics for closing the deal — building a coalition, connecting your proposal to something larger, acknowledging the dip — are easier to understand in the context of real examples. A retrospective on a change that succeeded and one that didn't usually reveals more than any framework on its own.

What to do¶

In small groups, discuss the following:

Think of a change at your institution that ran out of steam before it was implemented. What went wrong? Was it ever officially stopped, or did it just fade?
Think of a change that succeeded. What did its advocates do to get it over the line — especially things that are not on any list?

What you produce¶

Two or three concrete tactics — things that actually worked in your experience — that you would add to the course material.

5.1 – Evaluating Your Advocacy¶

Section: Section 5 – Follow Up and Evaluate

Time: 15 minutes

Format: Individual, then group discussion

Background¶

Evaluation is not just a reporting requirement — it is how you find out whether your theory of change was right. The key question is not did we do what we planned? but did anything actually change as a result?

It helps to distinguish three levels: outputs (what you produced), outcomes (what changed as a result), and impact (the broader change in the world). Being honest about which level you are at — and not claiming impact when you have only measured activity — is important for your own learning and your credibility with others.

What to do¶

For the Greendale scenario or your own institution:

What outputs would you expect to produce in the first three months?
What outcomes would tell you your advocacy is working?
What would tell you it is not working — and at what point would you adjust course rather than push harder?
Who made commitments during the process, and how will you follow up on them?

What you produce¶

A short evaluation plan — one or two sentences per question — that you could return to three months into your advocacy campaign.

Conclusion – Final Reflection¶

Section: Conclusion

Time: 10 minutes

Format: Individual

What to do¶

What is the single most useful, surprising, or clarifying thing from this course?
What is one concrete step you will take in the next two weeks?
What support do you need to take it?

Write your answers down. Concrete intentions are more likely to become actions than mental notes.